Report to Readers: A riveting story becomes a legal headache

One thing Concord Monitor reporters learn quickly: If you’re covering a story that involves Tony Soltani, it’s always going to be interesting. Recently, however, what started out as an especially interesting tale turned into a stressful legal fight for the newspaper.

Soltani, a former state lawmaker from Epsom, was involved in a bizarre traffic incident last spring. Readers may recall that he was arrested on Route 28 in April after the police said he tried to force a driver off the road and interfere with an officer chasing a fleeing car. An indictment issued in May alleged that he was driving up to 110 mph.

Soltani said he was actually trying to help the cop pursue a dangerous driver. He said friends in law enforcement told him he deserved a community service award for his effort – and he said he doubted his Dodge Neon could go that fast.

On April 12, the Monitor published a long story about the incident, including an interview with Soltani. And that’s where our legal tangle began.

Late last month prosecutors pursuing the case against Soltani issued a subpoena demanding that Monitor reporter Tricia Nadolny appear in court in February to testify about that article. We could see why they were interested in it. After all, the story had Soltani describing the chase in his own words. He acknowledged speeding down Route 28 to pass the fleeing car and attempting to execute a “rolling roadblock.” He said he had the car contained for “a good 30 to 45 seconds” but that the police officer involved didn’t help him execute the technique.

Still, this is not the sort of holiday-season mail journalists like to receive. Our job is to cover the news, not participate in it. Helping the state convict someone is not our role. Participating in such a proceeding undermines our ability to do our job. It has a chilling effect on the free flow of information to the public and on the independence of the press. Our basic position is that our written work stands for itself; no need to haul our reporters into court.

That’s precisely the argument our attorney made when he filed a motion with the court to quash the subpoena. But there was another wrinkle, too:

The subpoena was issued to Nadolny, but she hadn’t actually conducted the interview with Soltani. The April 12 story had two bylines on it: Nadolny’s and Matthew Spolar’s. They worked together on the story, but it was Spolar who conducted the interview.

Why did the state subpoena Nadolny? When the prosecutors made themselves a copy of the April 12 story from the Monitor website, the website somehow produced a version with Spolar’s name mysteriously cut off. (Imagine! A glitch with our website!)

We quickly informed the prosecutor that Spolar had conducted the interview – and also that he no longer worked for the Monitor and no longer lived in New Hampshire. On Jan. 6 Nadolny signed an affidavit, swearing that it was Spolar, not she, who did that initial interview with Soltani.

Were we off the hook? It took a while to find out. For while Nadolny hadn’t done the April 12 interview, she had written nearly a dozen more stories on this strange case in the months since. Was the state interested in those too? For a long while, there was silence on the other end. Then, late on Thursday, we got word that the state had withdrawn Nadolny from its witness list, excusing her from the subpoena and negating our need to argue before a judge that she shouldn’t have to testify.

Phew!

At this point, the Soltani trial is scheduled to start in early February. We’ll be there – in the audience, not on the witness stand.

Common Sense:
The New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions both recognize the dependence of a free democracy on the vitality of a free press. The clean government and a free press must be part and parcel of one another. New Hampshire is more strict than the Federal government in protecting news gatherers from being hauled into court. This is just simple third year law school stuff. There has to be an initial showing that other attempts have already failed in obtaining the same information.. When you Watlz into Court after issuing a subpoena for the wrong person without a single word to show any other attempts, in tells volumes about the true agenda. Neither I , nor the Monitor will be intimidated. Truth will prevail, with God's Grace. Pray for the misguided.

RabbitNH wrote:

02/06/2013

Are you talking about the Sheild Law? If you are it does not apply here.
If not, please tell me what law you are referring to.

Nhdriver wrote:

01/21/2013

They are going out of their way Rabbit because someone stood up to their intimidation. So what it the plan of attack now? Okay we can't get tony one way. Let's threaten the kid who we (wrongly) think interviewed Tony. This has become the intimidation pattern of how the NH justice system functions. Have a great day Rabbit !!!! :) NHD

RabbitNH wrote:

01/20/2013

NHD, is your stand that newspapers and reporters should be exempt from testifying in court?

Nhdriver wrote:

01/20/2013

Nothing like the State of New Hampshire trying to crush a young woman all because it has finally had someone rub it's nose in the dirt. Mind you this is the same group of Zealots who are militarizing our police forces and purchasing armored personnel carriers. What has them wound up here is that Tony in his first court appearance spiked the ball right back down their throat. Go Tony !!! Godspeed and our support is with you!!!,,,,,,, Nhdriver, Duke and Charlie.